the WAC can breathe a sigh of relief. They won't be losing NMSU for a couple years at least.

(05-21-2014 09:57 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the WAC can breathe a sigh of relief. They won't be losing NMSU for a couple years at least.

Yes ~ if they were to decide to go NMSU all-sports (in whatever combination) next spring, or even this coming fall, the WAC would still have NMSU Olympic sports for 2014/15 and 2015/16.

(05-21-2014 05:26 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  I believe UMASS would go all sports to MAC or football to FCS before they would put their football in the Sunbelt.

Your belief is ill-founded. UMass reached out to the Belt, not the other way around.

(05-21-2014 10:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:57 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  the WAC can breathe a sigh of relief. They won't be losing NMSU for a couple years at least.

Yes ~ if they were to decide to go NMSU all-sports (in whatever combination) next spring, or even this coming fall, the WAC would still have NMSU Olympic sports for 2014/15 and 2015/16.

And with that, I can see the WAC pulling in another team into the fold. Not necessarily a D2 team but probably a team from the a lower D1 conferences that wants to expand their brand beyond a micro region and has the budget to do so.

The title of this thread should probably say...No "FCS" expansion for the Sunbelt...which was previously reported.

I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

When is the SBC up for TV renewal? That is always a factor in the timing of re-alignment.

(05-22-2014 08:52 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

That would be "the SBC doesn't want to allocate money to pay their exit fee", since with $1m extra from adding a 12th FB team, an exit fee of $250,000, there's lots to move around for conference affiliation payment and for travel subsidies, if the two parties are amenable.

With the CCG rules up in the air, there's ample reason to wait until those rules are determined. After all, one model that the Sunbelt could consider if you can have a CCG with ten schools is to promote NMSU to all-sports and let Idaho go when their contract is up, for a 10/12 model.

It won't be possible to get clear advice on the difference in media value of different possibilities until it is clear what different possibilities are going to be allowed under the rules.

(05-22-2014 09:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 08:52 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

That would be "the SBC doesn't want to allocate money to pay their exit fee", since with $1m extra from adding a 12th FB team, an exit fee of $250,000, there's lots to move around for conference affiliation payment and for travel subsidies, if the two parties are amenable.

With the CCG rules up in the air, there's ample reason to wait until those rules are determined. After all, one model that the Sunbelt could consider if you can have a CCG with ten schools is to promote NMSU to all-sports and let Idaho go when their contract is up, for a 10/12 model.

It won't be possible to get clear advice on the difference in media value of different possibilities until it is clear what different possibilities are going to be allowed under the rules.

I don't know why so many folks on here think that NMSU is just so automatic for all sports. The eastern schools I don't think have any interest in doing that at all. And they have enough clout to not allow that to happen.

(05-22-2014 09:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  With the CCG rules up in the air, there's ample reason to wait until those rules are determined. After all, one model that the Sunbelt could consider if you can have a CCG with ten schools is to promote NMSU to all-sports and let Idaho go when their contract is up, for a 10/12 model.

I don't know why so many folks on here think that NMSU is just so automatic for all sports.

Perhaps the large numbers are because you are seeing people saying NMSU all-sports is automatic where in reality they are not saying that? I certainly did not say or suggest that NMSU all-sports is automatic.

Promoting NMSU all-sports is going to be one of the options on the table so long as the Sunbelt is not seen as having a long term settled alignment, and an alignment in which one school is odd-school-out in every conference football schedule round does not seem like a long term settled alignment.

(05-22-2014 08:52 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  The title of this thread should probably say...No "FCS" expansion for the Sunbelt...which was previously reported.

I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

When is the SBC up for TV renewal? That is always a factor in the timing of re-alignment.

Expires 2020 but there has already been one "look-in" window come and go without the league exercising the look-in, my people tell me they want to get the title game issue resolved before asking to ESPN to pony up more cash.

(05-22-2014 09:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 08:52 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

That would be "the SBC doesn't want to allocate money to pay their exit fee", since with $1m extra from adding a 12th FB team, an exit fee of $250,000, there's lots to move around for conference affiliation payment and for travel subsidies, if the two parties are amenable.

With the CCG rules up in the air, there's ample reason to wait until those rules are determined. After all, one model that the Sunbelt could consider if you can have a CCG with ten schools is to promote NMSU to all-sports and let Idaho go when their contract is up, for a 10/12 model.

It won't be possible to get clear advice on the difference in media value of different possibilities until it is clear what different possibilities are going to be allowed under the rules.

I don't know why so many folks on here think that NMSU is just so automatic for all sports. The eastern schools I don't think have any interest in doing that at all. And they have enough clout to not allow that to happen.

It takes three to block with 9 votes required. I've been told there are 5 to 6 solid yes votes and they are stuck there.

I just don't see NMSU as being a viable option unless there were a 2nd western school to travel partner up with them. Don't think the schools like Ga Southern or App St want anything to do with them quite frankly when combined with Texas Arlington and Texas St.

(05-22-2014 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 08:52 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I fully expect UMass to follow in New Mexico State and Idaho's footsteps and join the SBC in football...but they don't want to pay that exit fee (and entrance fee)...and the SBC doesnt have the money to pay their exit fee...so it's a waiting game.

That would be "the SBC doesn't want to allocate money to pay their exit fee", since with $1m extra from adding a 12th FB team, an exit fee of $250,000, there's lots to move around for conference affiliation payment and for travel subsidies, if the two parties are amenable.

With the CCG rules up in the air, there's ample reason to wait until those rules are determined. After all, one model that the Sunbelt could consider if you can have a CCG with ten schools is to promote NMSU to all-sports and let Idaho go when their contract is up, for a 10/12 model.

It won't be possible to get clear advice on the difference in media value of different possibilities until it is clear what different possibilities are going to be allowed under the rules.

I don't know why so many folks on here think that NMSU is just so automatic for all sports. The eastern schools I don't think have any interest in doing that at all. And they have enough clout to not allow that to happen.

It takes three to block with 9 votes required. I've been told there are 5 to 6 solid yes votes and they are stuck there.

Makes sense...

I do wonder if eventually we're going to see a split. The App St, Ga St, Troy, So Alabama, Ga Southern group forming one conference- with eastern expansion teams, and then NMSU, Texas St, La-Lafayette, La-Monroe, Arkansas St with western expansion teams.

(05-22-2014 10:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't see NMSU as being a viable option unless there were a 2nd western school to travel partner up with them. Don't think the schools like Ga Southern or App St want anything to do with them quite frankly when combined with Texas Arlington and Texas St.

If the easternmost schools do not like that trip, that would suggest that NMSU has an easier case to make in a 12/14 alignment than in a 10/12 alignment (where many Olympic sports could be set up to have schools play more games against their closest schools) ...
... but I didn't get into the pros and cons of the model, just pointed out that it could be an option on the table.

Much depends on what prospective media partners say they are willing to pay under different models. It could be that the per school payout under a 10/12 alignment with a CCG is enough better that GA Southern, GA State and App State look past that particular issue.

Any chance that UTA football may still be on the table? Obviously it would be several years out before the Mavs would be postseason eligible in FBS, but that could be another fly in the ointment.

(05-22-2014 12:39 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Any chance that UTA football may still be on the table? Obviously it would be several years out before the Mavs would be postseason eligible in FBS, but that could be another fly in the ointment.

I've seen at least one UTA fan wishing for it on the Sunbelt forum, but I have no idea if its a real possibility.

Adding UTA football and NMSU Olympic sports would be one route to 12/12 without adding any schools.

That'd be far enough down the track to make a four year deal with a FB-only school a reasonable stop gap if the conference wanted to get to 12/12 before UTA would be in a position to join as a FB school ... but that seems like it would hinge on the 12 school part of the rule for the CCG staying in place.

(05-22-2014 01:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:39 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Any chance that UTA football may still be on the table? Obviously it would be several years out before the Mavs would be postseason eligible in FBS, but that could be another fly in the ointment.

I've seen at least one UTA fan wishing for it on the Sunbelt forum, but I have no idea if its a real possibility.

Adding UTA football and NMSU Olympic sports would be one route to 12/12 without adding any schools.

That'd be far enough down the track to make a four year deal with a FB-only school a reasonable stop gap if the conference wanted to get to 12/12 before UTA would be in a position to join as a FB school ... but that seems like it would hinge on the 12 school part of the rule for the CCG staying in place.

problem for bball is still have 3 Texas/New Mexico Schools- which messes with the travel parters.

(05-22-2014 01:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:39 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Any chance that UTA football may still be on the table? Obviously it would be several years out before the Mavs would be postseason eligible in FBS, but that could be another fly in the ointment.

I've seen at least one UTA fan wishing for it on the Sunbelt forum, but I have no idea if its a real possibility.

Adding UTA football and NMSU Olympic sports would be one route to 12/12 without adding any schools.

That'd be far enough down the track to make a four year deal with a FB-only school a reasonable stop gap if the conference wanted to get to 12/12 before UTA would be in a position to join as a FB school ... but that seems like it would hinge on the 12 school part of the rule for the CCG staying in place.

They discontinued their football team in 1985 due to lack of funding and lack of interest (averaged 2500 fans that year). Since that time, they have committed those resources to their other sports.

In 2004, their president asked the students about it, they were in favor restarting the team (2-1 margin) but nothing was done on that front. The administration elected to build a new facility for their basketball program.

The Mavs would have an uphill battle. Systems schools UT-San Antonio and UT-El Paso are the only shows in their respective towns. El Paso has no Major league sports and San Antonio only has the Spurs. This enables them to pick up Tshirt fans and sponsorship dollars as opposed to the over saturated market in Arlington.

UTA's campus is down the street from Cowboys Stadium and the Texas Rangers Ballpark. They share Tarrant County with TCU, and have SMU and UNT sitting across town for college competition.

DFW is a Pro Sports town and the people of Arlington are Cowboys fans first and foremost. I don't see football on the table for the Mavs for a long time, if ever again.

(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  problem for bball is still have 3 Texas/New Mexico Schools- which messes with the travel parters.

Which is elaborating why it comes down to some package giving a favorable result as far as media value.

After all, it doesn't matter how many Central or East Texas schools there are in a conference as far as travel partners for NMSU goes ... any more than UTEP really benefits from a Central or East Texas "travelling partner" ... as far as travel goes, its on an island unless its in the same conference as either UTEP or New Mexico.

I drove from San Antonio to El Paso when I was younger, noticing the trees getting shorter and shorter and shorter until they were scrub ... and being in the same state doesn't make that trip very much shorter than Central Texas to Las Cruces.

And lack of travel partner being a black mark really comes down to impact on travel costs, which is why it hinges on some prospective media partner looks at some set-up including NMSU all-sports and says that there's $X extra money in it, with $X being enough to swing 3-4 "no" or "not yet" votes to "yes" votes.

problem is TV money isn't going to be enough to sway that. Just isn't. getting an extra 100-200k isn't going to be worth the long term travel problems of NMSU.

(05-22-2014 03:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  problem is TV money isn't going to be enough to sway that. Just isn't. getting an extra 100-200k isn't going to be worth the long term travel problems of NMSU.

Depends on how much travel they do to Las Cruces, which again comes down to assuming additional detail about the arrangements.

We are talking about travel for the Men & Women's BBall, Baseball & Softball, Women's Soccer & Women's Volleyball. That could be as many as six team trips a year or as few as three, depending on how the playing schedule in those sports are organized.